Chennai Court August 1953 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ramkrishna Naidu and ors. Vs. Janaki Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Mad241; (1954)IIMLJ232
ORDERChandra Reddy, J.1. This revision petition raises a question relating to court-fee. The petitioner filed (sic) suit in the Court of the District Munsif of (sic)alangiman for recovery of properties described (sic) A, B and C schedules annexed to the plaint (sic) to be the reversioner to the estate of (sic) Chinnayya Nayudu against the alienees of (sic) properties from the widow of said Chinnay (sic) Naidu. He valued the suit at Rs. 2797 and (sic) an ad valorem court-fee of Rs. 247-7-0. 2. Pending the suit, but before it came on for (sic) the plaintiffs filed compromise petitions settling their claim with defendants 5, 7, 9 and (sic) in respect of items 1 and 3 of the plaint schedule properties. Subsequently, that is, after (sic) issues were framed, the court-fee examiner (sic)sued a check-slip that the suit properties were (sic) correctly valued, though none of the parties (sic) raised any objection as to the valuation or (sic) the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. (sic) the Dis...
Kulla Ammal (Died) and ors. Vs. the Oriental Government Security Life ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad636
Mack, J. 1. This is an appeal against a judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore dismissing with costs a suit filed by Kullammal, widow of one Subbiah Chettiar, against the Oriental Life Assurance Company Ltd. for the recovery of Rs. 52,750 on an endowment policy for Rs. 50,000 with profits for 20 years taken out by her husband on 27-6-1945. Subbiah Chettiar assigned the policy to his wife. He paid the first premium of Rs. 3540-10-0 on 27-6-1945. He also paid the second year's premium in July 1946 and then died on 27-7-1946 in a Nursing Home after an accident necessitating an operation to his thigh. The extract from the Death Register shows that death was due to haemoptysis cellubitis of the thigh. The evidence of his son Sanjeevi Chettiar (P. W. 1) who was 20 years old at the time of his father's death that the injury to his thigh became septic, and that he died after an operation in a Nursing Home is not disputed. Pending appeal, the widow Kullammal died and her son...
Kakarla Venkatasubbayya and anr. Vs. Sravanam Venkatarathnamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad681; (1954)IMLJ396
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the Judgment and decree passed by our learned brother Panchapakesa Aiyar J. confirming the lower appellate Court's order directing appellants defendants 1 and 2 to execute a fresh sale-deed and get it registered and modifying the lower appellate Court's decree so far as costs were concerned.2. The facts involved in this Letters Patent Appeal have been elaborately set out by our learned brother in his judgment dated 12-12-1,949. We do not think it is necessary for us to restate them over again in this judgment.3. Two main legal contentions have been raised in this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellants. The first contention is that the suit is not maintainable, as Section 77, Registration Act has not been complied with, and that unless the remedy provided under Section 77, Registration Act is sought by setting the machinery provided therefor in motion, a suit for specific performance cannot lie. The second contention is that, in second ...
Sri Radhakrishna Trading Co., Kurnool Vs. Commr. of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Mad367; [1954]26ITR666(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.1. The question referred under Section 66(1) of Act 11of 1922 for the decision of this Court was;'Whether in the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the assessee firm was bound to sendto the Income-tax Officer an estimate of the taxpayable by it before 15-3-1947 and pay the taxas required by Section 18-A (3), Indian-Income-taxAct, 1922.'2. Though the question as framed does not really bring out the real point in issue, a mere enumeration of the dates and events that preceded the imposition of the penalty on the assessee should suffice to answer tbe question, even as it has been framed, in the negative and in favour of the assessee.3. A partnership was formed on 28-12-1945, evidenced by an agreement in writing, and business was commenced on 24-1-1946. The partners adopted the Samvat year as the year of accounting, and the accounts were closed on 24-10-1946. The partnership deed itself was drawn on 2-6-1947, and the firm lodged its return of assessment on 14-7-1947 ...
Sri Kannan Rice Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad723; [1954]26ITR351(Mad); (1952)1MLJ508
SATYANARAYANA RAO, J. - The questions referred to this Court under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act for decision are as follows :-(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 1,70,363 profit realised by the sale of plant, machinery and buildings by the assessee is exempt from capital gains tax by reason of the third proviso to Section 12B(1) of the Act :(ii) Whether the profit realised by the sale of that portion of the buildings which was used for the assessees business was exempt from capital gains tax under the second proviso to Section 12-B(1) of the Act.The statement of the case by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal sets out fully the facts relevant for the decision of the two questions. On 25th March, 1947, the directors resolved to liquidate the company and a General Body Meeting was held on 31st March, 1947. By a special resolution of the company, the company went into voluntary liquidation and a liquidator was appointed. The capital assets of ...
In Re: A. Vaidyanatha Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad350; (1954)IMLJ15
Govinda Menon, J. 1. At the time the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, Act 46 of 1952 came into force on 28-7-1952, certain proceedings were pending against the petitioner herein under Section 161, I. P. C. before a Special Magistrate who had already framed charges against the petitioner and posted the case for further hearing to 12-8-1952. Under Section 10 of Act 46 of 1952 this case stood transferred to the Special Judge who at that time was the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore who in his turn transferred the case to the Additional Sessions Judge for disposal. Subsequently the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge of Coimbatore (Sri S. Varadarajulu Naidu) having been appointed as a Special Judge, in virtue of the powers conferred under Section 6 of the Act on 18-2-1953, took up the case for hearing and proceeded with the examination of some witnesses when he was promoted and transferred from the station.When his successor Sri C. Rajabadar Odayar took up the enquiry, an application was made ...
Indian Tobacco Corporation by Its Managing Partner, N. Krishnaswami an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad549; (1954)IMLJ429
1. These four appeals preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common judgment of Subba Rao J. disposing of Jour applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Involve the same point and may be disposed of together. It will be convenient to refer to the facts in one of the applications, namely, W. P. No. 568 of 1953. The facts in the other applications are substantially identical.2. The petitioners in W. P. No. 56? of 1953, namely, the Indian Tobacco Corporation, are a partnership firm carrying on business at Madras. In June 1951 the Madras Government called for tenders for the distribution (by sale) of Ammonium Sulphate and Superphosphate fertilisers in the State of Madras for three years from July 1951 to end of June 1954 from firms of repute and standing having depots and branches in such of the districts of the Madras State in which they desired to take up distribution. The petitioners were one of the firms which sent tenders. The Government accepted...
Parakkotan Alippi Sahib Vs. Province of Madras, Represented by the Col ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad562; (1954)IMLJ13
Rajagopalan, J. 1. The plaintiff-appellant was a merchant as well as a commission agent at Tellicherry. As a commission agent, he sold goods on behalf of known principals and he also bought goods on behalf of known principals. The dealings were apparently mainly in pepper and cashewnuts. In 1944-45, his business turnover- for the business he did on his own was Rs. 2,22,563-5-9. His liability to sales tax on this turnover was never in dispute. For the same period, he showed his turnover as a selling agent, i.e., a commission agent selling goods on behalf of known principals, at Rs. 8,89,297-11-5. As a buying agent, his turnover was Rs. 88,684-0-0. He was assessed to a sales tax of Rs. 9,779-13-1 on these two items.The plaintiff filed the suit out of which this appeal arose for a declaration that the levy of sales tax on his turnover as a commission agent, i.e., both as a selling and as a buying agent, was illegal.2. The claim was resisted, among others, on the ground that the plaintiff ...
K. Vajravelu Mudaliar Vs. Rajalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad358; (1953)2MLJ619
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this revision petition is whether the place of marriage confers jurisdiction for a suit for maintenance filed by a Hindu wife against her husband.2. The petitioner is the husband and the suit was instituted by his wife the respondent, in the District Munsif's Court of Tiruchirapalli, for recovery of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50 per mensem, for arrears and for other reliefs. The petitioner was residing in Chittoor, a place outside the Jurisdiction of the Additional District Munsif's court of Tiruchirapalli and on his contention that the District Munsif's court of Tiruchirapalli had no jurisdiction to try the suit, the issue as to jurisdiction was tried as a preliminary issue. The District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli upheld the objection holding that the cause of action for a suit for maintenance was the breach of the duty on the part of the husband to maintain his wife, which breach of duty occurred at Chittoor an...
P. Venkateswararao Vs. State of Madras, Represented by the Secretary t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1043; (1955)ILLJ391Mad
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is an application tinder Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a Writ of Certiorari to quasnithe order of the Government removing the petitioner from the office of Sub-Magistrate. In or about the end of 1951 the Madras Public Service Commission invited applications from the Members of the Bar and others for six appointments of Sub-Magistrates In the Madras Supordinate Magisterial service. The petitioner along with others applied for the post. On 20-3-1952 the Madras Public Service Commission interviewed the candidates. On 29-3-1952 the petitioner received a communication from the Madras Public Service Commission informing him that subject to his being found to be physically fit he had been selected provisionally for appointment as a Subordinate Magistrate. He was also asked to send a medical certificate showing his physical fitness before 15-4-1952. In the list of the selected candidates he was placed first in rank. On 30-4-1952 the High Court i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »